2014-01-29_HRA_LDC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HRA Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 29, 2014 Page 7 1 At the request of Member Willmus, Ms. Kelsey provided her perspective on HRA’s versus 2 EDA’s, clarifying that the EDA levy counted against the City’s overall maximum levy 3 restrictions, while the HRA levy is not considered part of the City’s maximum levy ability, 4 having a distinct and separate levy authority. At the request of Member Willmus, Ms. Kelsey 5 further addressed and EDA as providing a tool, similar to the HRA; opining that as a first-ring 6 suburb, the Roseville HRA could perform redevelopment activities by addressing slum and 7 blight; with the attorney’s perspective from a business retention status of an EDA preventing 8 vacant storefronts, which were not overly problematic in Roseville at this time. Ms. Kelsey 9 noted that the HRA simply needed to use care in what activities it performed that were not 10 housing-related. 11 12 At the request of Member Willmus, Ms. Kelsey advised that the current business retention 13 survey did not indicate the need for many small business loans or funding for business start- 14 ups, which would typically be done by an EDA. 15 16 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Kelsey clarified that the current Local Development 17 Corporation (LDC) would be dissolved when the final loan was paid off in full; with laws no 18 longer in place related to LDC’s, making it prohibitive for the City to continue it. 19 20 At the request of Chair Maschka, Ms. Kelsey advised that the Port Authority was also a 21 separate entity. 22 23 Member Majerus opined that the HRA had come a long with receiving the support of the City 24 Council and respect of the community and were working in concert. By adding an EDA to the 25 mix, Member Majerus questioned if this would further interfere with that cooperative effort. 26 Member Majerus suggested that the HRA continue to take the energy developed to-date and 27 see how many community goals could be achieved. 28 29 Chair Maschka opined that this was more of a political decision for the City Council, but 30 would get the HRA out of some of the grey areas beyond housing in the Twin Lakes 31 Redevelopment Area that might include economic development efforts as part of those housing 32 efforts; and without the need to verify slum and blight conditions; and provide a bigger 33 umbrella under which the HRA could operate. 34 35 Member Majerus spoke in support of hearing the perspective of the City Council. 36 37 Member Willmus admitted that he was intrigued by the concept, and would concur that City 38 Council input was indicated; opining that this would also provide a different perspective on 39 whether to have accountability or representation from the City Council to the HRA or an EDA. 40 41 Chair Maschka concurred, noting that an EDA would require two (2) Councilmembers to 42 serve; with Member Willmus noting this would therein bring forth the political discussion. 43 44 At the request of Member Quam, Ms. Kelsey confirmed that there was no other arm of the City 45 currently doing economic and/or commercial redevelopment efforts. 46 47 Chair Maschka noted that economic development efforts were once again starting up in the 48 blighted Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, with Member Quam noting that those efforts were 49 driven by private interests. 50 51 Within a certain context, Member Willmus noted that the City’s Comprehensive Plan and 52 Zoning Code were guiding the redevelopment, but that overall it was left to the open market. 53 Member Willmus noted that one real problem in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area over the 54 last thirty (30) years, was that every few years; the City comes along and moves the ball, 55 which wasn’t a popular occurrence for the development community. Member Willmus opined